#728 Predicting individual patient response to corticosteroids in IgA nephropathy: a secondary analysis from the TESTING cohort
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background and Aims Corticosteroids are an effective treatment for IgA nephropathy but are associated with considerable adverse events. The TESTING clinical trial showed an average treatment effect of a 47% relative risk reduction in the primary composite outcome for methylprednisolone versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.39–0.72). This is an aggregate result that cannot be applied to individual patients to make personalized treatment decisions, making it challenging to identify appropriate patients for corticosteroid treatment. To address this problem, we conducted a secondary analysis of the TESTING cohort to generate a model that can predict, for an individual patient, the probability that they will respond to methylprednisolone resulting in a lower risk of kidney disease progression. Method Time to the primary outcome (40% reduction in eGFR, kidney failure or death due to kidney disease) was first evaluated in a Cox proportional hazards model in which all potential treatment effect modifiers including demographic, clinical and MEST-C variables were evaluated as main effects using backwards elimination. The selected variables were then forced into a multivariable model along with treatment exposure and interaction terms between treatment and each other variable. This model was used to generate the predicted 4-year absolute risk of the primary outcome for each patient under separate counterfactual scenarios of being treated with methylprednisolone or placebo. The difference in risk between the two scenarios was the predicted individual treatment effect on absolute risk reduction (ARR). Model performance was assessed using discrimination plots, restricted mean survival time (RMST, an estimate of the additional time methylprednisolone provides without experiencing the primary outcome) and the C-statistic for benefit (ability of the model to discriminate between patients who got more versus less benefit from methylprednisolone). Results A total of 483 patients were included (median age 36 years, proteinuria 2.0 g/day, eGFR 57 mL/min). During 43 (median) months of follow-up, 176 participants experienced the primary outcome. Compared to the average ARR associated with methylprednisolone (16.1%, 95% CI 15.5–16.8), the predicted individual-level ARR was highly variable ranging from zero (for patients who experience minimal or no benefit) to more than 30% (for patients who experience considerable benefit) (Fig. 1, left panel). Patients with predicted ARR >10% had a substantially greater observed benefit from methylprednisolone (ARR 24%) compared to those with predicted ARR ≤10% (ARR −5%) (Fig. 1, right panel). A policy of treating patients with higher predicted benefit (ARR >10%) and not treating patients with low predicted benefit (ARR ≤10%) had a longer RMST than using random treatment allocation as was done in the main trial (1,194 v 1,028 days). The C-statistic for benefit was 0.63 (95% CI 0.56–0.70). Calibration plots showed considerable agreement between predicted and observed ARR. Findings were consistent in both the high-dose and reduced-dose methylprednisolone cohorts. The pattern of treatment effect modifiers was similar when the outcome was changed to annualized eGFR slope. Conclusion We have generated a model that can predict individual patient response to methylprednisolone and inform personalized treatment decisions in IgAN so that corticosteroid therapy can be targeted to those most likely to benefit.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».